Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?

[ytomino <aghia05@gmail.com>]

On Oct 18, 6:54 pm, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> “Really?” Yes Ytomino ;) You obviously need to initialize it in some way,  
> but until initialized, you can't access individuals bytes, and all indexes  
> you pass to UNICODE_STRING methods, are character index, never byte index.
>
> In the former link, just to a search using “-- Get ”, to search for basic  
> accessors: you have two, one as a method, one as an operator (you will  
> easily guess, the syntax is Ada inspired), and both expect a character  
> index, not a byte index. You obviously have initializers and converters to  
> and from other encoding, and methods to check if the actual content match  
> some restricted Unicode range to avoid runtime error (defensive  
> programming), but the main interface, accesses characters, not bytes at  
> all.
>
> It's a long time I did not write any Eiffel stuff. Thanks for the above  
> link, was a pleasure to see :) (some days ago, some one else posted some  
> stuff with Eiffel inside too)
>
> --
> “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.”  [Epigrams on  
> Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University]
> “Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [Idem]
> Java: Write once, Never revisit

OK, I've understood.
But, UNICODE_STRING is usually not called "UTF-8 string". Because the
content is decoded.
UNICODE_STRING seems just array of UCS-32 code points to me. It's
called "UTF-32 string" commonly.
(It's same as that Wide_Wide_String is not called UTF-8 string.)